You are on page 1of 25

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A. M. No. 12-1-09-METC; A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC; A.M. No. MTJ-


12-1813; A.M. MTJ 12-1815; OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ; OCA IPI No.
11-2399-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 12- 2456-MTJ;
A.M. MTJ 13-1821

MOTION TO DISMISS A.M. NO. MTJ-12-1813, A.M. NO. MTJ-12-


1815 AND A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821 ON GROUND OF DENIAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

I, the undersigned respondent and unto this Honorable Court most


respectfully aver:

1. That I filed my final and last appeal dated July 12, 2017 and
supplemental appeal dated July 26, 2017 on A.M. No. MTJ -12-
1813 et al. pending resolution before the Honorable Supreme
Court En Banc;

2. That I filed my Omnibus Motions to Deconsolidate and Omnibus


Motions to Dismiss dated November 23, 2017 on A.M. No. MTJ -
12-1813 et al. pending resolution before the Honorable Supreme
Court En Banc;

3. That I filed Supplemental Motion to Dismiss dated November 23,


2017 on A.M. No. MTJ -12-1813 et al. before the Honorable
Supreme Court En Banc;

i
4. That I move to dismiss A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, A.M. No. MTJ-12-
1815 AND A.M. No. A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821 on the ground of
denial of my constitutional right to due process under the following
discussions and arguments:

A. A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 and A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815

In these two administrative cases docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-12- 1813


and A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815, the complainant is the Honorable Office
of the Court Administrator thus when it reported and recommended for
the imposition of harsh penalties upon me despite of absence of
damage and injury to the State and taxpayers as well as absence of
damage and injury to branch clerk of court Mrs. Leilani Tejero - Lopez
and clerk Mrs. Mariejoy Lagman who performed official duties
notwithstanding the irregularities and illegalities surrounding their
appointments, there was a conflict of interest committed by it
tantamount to denial of my constitutional right to due process, the
Office of the Court Administrator became police, prosecutor, judge,
jury and executioner — all rolled into one. Obviously, I cannot expect
fairness from the Honorable Office of the Court Administrator, and the
satisfaction of the expectation of fairness is part and parcel of due
process when I am entitled to a cold neutrality of an impartial judge.

In Castillo et al. vs. Judge Juan, G.R. Nos. L-39516-17, January


28, 1975 citing Gutierrez v. Santos, L-15824, May 30, 1961, 2
SCRA 249: "It has been said, in fact, that due process of law requires
a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that every
litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial
Judge." In Geotina v. Gonzales, L-26310, September 30, 1971, 41
SCRA 66: “A judge, according to Justice Castro, the ponente, should
strive to be at all times "wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
independent. Elementary due process requires a hearing before an
impartial and disinterested tribunal. A judge has both the duty of
rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his
integrity."

2
B. A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821

I was informed that there are numerous Facebook accounts with


name Eliza B. Yu. Please see previously submitted Exhibit “1” to the
Honorable Office of the Chief Justice and the Honorable Office of the
Court Administrator.

There are two Facebook accounts with similar names Eliza B. Yu, one
activated and the other deactivated that appeared at my kin’s friend’s
list. Please see previously submitted Exhibit “2” to the Honorable
Office of the Chief Justice and the Honorable Office of the Court
Administrator.

What appeared from a kin’s messenger to a deactivated Facebook


account with name Eliza B. Yu is “Facebook user” not “Eliza B. Yu”,
the effect of deactivation previously mentioned in my
correspondences to your respective office. Please see previously
submitted Exhibit “3” to the Honorable Office of the Chief Justice and
the Honorable Office of the Court Administrator.

Facebook accounts with similar names and identities are deactivated


or suspended automatically. Please see previously submitted Exhibits
“4” and “5” to the Honorable Office of the Chief Justice and the
Honorable Office of the Court Administrator.

Because typewritten Facebook emails with name Bambi Yu were


attached to Judge Emily L. San Gaspar - Gito’s complaint against me,
the absence of my requested actual computer-print-outs with
Facebook name Bambi Yu from start of probe until now denied me of
my constitutional right to due process that calls for the dismissal of the
administrative case without prejudice to its re-filing upon presentation
of competent and credible evidence to be attached with the new
complaint thereafter she follows the legal, right and just observance of
administrative processes. Due process entails the adoption of proper
procedure.

3
5. That the cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic
constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The
violation of a party's right to due process raises a serious
jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at
will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process
is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is
void for lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-
judicial and administrative proceedings, for the constitutional
guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings
(whether judicial or administrative) where he stands to lose the
same (Montoya v. Varilla, G.R. No. 180146, December 18, 2008,
574 SCRA 831, 843). Although administrative procedural rules are
less stringent and often applied more liberally, administrative
proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental
procedural principles, such as the right to due process in
investigations and hearings (Civil Service Commission v. Lucas,
361 Phil 486, 491 [1999]);

6. That precisely, any ruling issued without jurisdiction is, in legal


contemplation, necessarily null and void and does not exist
(People v. Velasco, 394 Phil. 517, 559 [2000]). Otherwise put, the
dismissal of the case below was invalid for lack of a fundamental
prerequisite, that is, due process. In rendering the judgment of
dismissal, the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction,
for a judgment which is void for lack of due process is equivalent to
excess or lack of jurisdiction (People v. Dumlao, G.R. No.
168918, March 2, 2009 citing Merciales v. Court of Appeals,
429 Phil. 70, 81 [2002]);

7. That cases are dismissed when there is a denial of one’s


constitutional right to due process.

4
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, I respectfully prayed unto the


Honorable Supreme Court En Banc to DISMISS A.M. No. MTJ-12-
1813, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815 and A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821 on ground
of denial of my constitutional right to due process.

Such other just and equitable reliefs.

January 3, 2018, Manila City

JUDGE ELIZA BARDELAS YU


MCLE EXEMPTION NO. V - 001404

AFFIDAVIT OF PROOF OF SERVICE AND EXPLANATION

I caused the service of the respective copies of this Motion for


Reconsideration with Explanation to the following parties by registered
mails (LBC) on the date and at the place indicated hereunder with
attached LBC receipts with postage fully pre-paid and with an
instruction to the LBC to return the mails within ten (10) days if
undelivered.

5
EMAIL VERIFIED DECLARATION

The filer shall also attach to the CD or the e-mail a verified declaration
that the pleading and annexes submitted electronically are complete
and true copies of the printed document and annexes filed with the
Supreme Court.

I hereby declare that the document/s (and annexes thereon hereto


submitted electronically in accordance with the Efficient use of Paper
Rule is/are complete and true copy/ies of the document/s (and
annexes) filed with the Supreme Court.

Affiant

Republic of the Philippines)


Manila City ) S.S.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this ____ of January,


2018, affiants exhibiting to me their competent identification cards.

Notary Public

Doc. No.: _
Page No.: _
Book No.: _
Series of 2018

Copy furnished:
Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez
Office of the Court Administrator

Judge Emily San Gaspar – Gito


c/o RTC Branch 5, Manila

6
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A. M. No. 12-1-09-METC; A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC; A.M. No.


MTJ-12-1813; A.M. MTJ 12-1815; OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ; OCA
IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 12-
2456-MTJ; A.M. MTJ 13-1821

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DISMISSAL OF OCA IPI NO. 12-2456-


MTJ AND A.M. MTJ 13-1821

I, the undersigned respondent Judge, and unto this Honorable Court


most respectfully aver:

1. That I filed my final and last appeal dated July 12, 2017 and
supplemental appeal dated July 26, 2017 pending resolution
before the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc;

2. That to supplement the Omnibus Motions for Deconsolidation


and Severance of Administrative Cases and Motions to Dismiss
dated November 23, 2017 on OCA IPI NO. 12-2456-MTJ and
A.M. MTJ 13-1821, I move to dismiss these following
administrative charges on the ground of denial of due process
for failure to inform the nature and cause of accusation against
me as stated in Andaya v. People, G.R. No. 168486, June 27,
2006, a criminal case law that applies to administrative cases
by analogy to quote:

We find ourselves unable to agree with this ratiocination of the trial


court because it violates the constitutional right[ of petitioner to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. As
early as the 1904 case of U.S. v. Karelsen, the rationale of this
fundamental right of the accused was already explained in this wise:

1
The object of this written accusation was First. To furnish the accused
with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him
to make his defense; and second, to avail himself of his conviction or
acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same
cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it
may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction,
if one should be had. (United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.) In
order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not
conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent;
these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity
of time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant), and circumstances. In
short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact
and circumstances necessary to constitute the crime charged
It is fundamental that every element constituting the offense must be
alleged in the information. The main purpose of requiring the various
elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the
accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the
offense. The allegations of facts constituting the offense charged are
substantial matters and an accuseds right to question his conviction
based on facts not alleged in the information cannot be waived. No
matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be,
an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in
the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein.
To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his
defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and
underhanded. The rule is that a variance between the allegation in
the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the
criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much
so that it affects his substantial rights.

1. OCA IPI NO. 12-2456-MTJ

I was found liable for “gross misconduct amounting to violation


of the Code of Judicial Conduct for not disqualifying herself" in
acting on the supposedly contumacious conduct of her fellow
Judges and concerned court personnel in copying the records
of her court.”

Aside from this is fabricated allegation, this is not part of the


complaint against me by the complainants Judge Bibiano Colasito et
2
al. I was deprived of my right to answer such accusation before the
promulgation of Decision on November 22, 2016.
This particular administrative charge was not made by complainants
Judge Bibiano Colasito et al. I was denied of my due process of
being informed of the nature and cause of their accusation that is
not part of their complaint.

2. A.M. MTJ 13-1821

I was found liable for “using the official letterhead of her judicial
office in summoning a lawyer to a conference.”

Aside from this is fabricated allegation, this is not part of the


complaint against me by the complainant Judge Emily San
Gaspar -Gito. I was deprived of my right to answer such accusation
before the promulgation of Decision on November 22, 2016.
This particular administrative charge was not made by complainant,I
was denied of my due process of being informed of the nature and
cause of her accusation that is not part of her complaint.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, I respectfully prayed unto the


Honorable Supreme Court En Banc to DISMISS the foregoing
charges under OCA IPI NO. 12-2456-MTJ AND A.M. MTJ 13-1821
for the denial of my constitutional right to due process for failure to be
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against me.

Such other just and equitable reliefs.


November 23, 2017, Manila City

JUDGE ELIZA BARDELAS YU


MCLE EXEMPTION NO. V – 001404

3
AFFIDAVIT OF PROOF OF SERVICE AND EXPLANATION
I caused the service of the respective copies of this Omnibus Motion
and similar motions bearing the same date of November 23, 2017 to
the following parties and/ or different parties involving A. M. No. 12-
1-09-METC; A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC; A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813;
A.M. MTJ 12-1815; OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 11-2399-
MTJ; OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ; A.M.
MTJ 13-1821 by registered mails (LBC) on the date and at the place
indicated hereunder with attached LBC receipts with postage fully
pre-paid and with an instruction to the LBC to return the mails within
ten (10) days if undelivered.

_______________

EMAIL VERIFIED DECLARATION


The filer shall also attach to the CD or the e-mail a verified
declaration that the Omnibus Motion and similar motions bearing the
same date of November 23, 2017 involving A. M. No. 12-1-09-
METC; A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC; A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813; A.M.
MTJ 12-1815; OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ;
OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ; A.M. MTJ 13-
1821 (pleading and/or annexes) submitted electronically are
complete and true copies of the printed document and annexes filed
with the Supreme Court.
I hereby declare that the document/s (and annexes thereon hereto
submitted electronically in accordance with the Efficient use of Paper
Rule is/are complete and true copy/ies of the document/s (and
annexes) filed with the Supreme Court.

___________________

Republic of the Philippines)


Manila City ) S.S.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this __ of November,


2017, affiants exhibiting to me their competent identification cards.

4
Notary Public
Doc. No.: __
Page No.: __
Book No.: __
Series of 2017

Copy furnished:
Judge Bibiano Colasito, Judge Bonifacio Pascua, Judge Restituto
Mangalindan Jr., Judge Catherine Manodon Miguel Infante, Emma
Annie Arafiles, Racquel Diano, Pedro Doctolero Jr., Lydia Casas,
Auxencio Clemente, Ma. Cecilia Gertrudes R. Salvador, Zenaida N.
Geronimo, Virginia D. Galang, Elsa Garnet, Amor Abad, Emelina J.
San Miguel, Maxima C. Sayo, Romer H. Aviles, Froilan Robert L.
Tomas, Dennis M. Echegoyen, Norman Garcia, Noel Labid
(deceased), Eleanor N. Bayog, Leilani A. Tejero – Lopez, Ana
Maria V. Francisco, Soledad J. Bassig, Marissa Mashhoor
Rastgooy, Marie Luz M. Obida, Evelyn P. Depalobos, Joseph B.
Pamatmat, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Benjie V. Ore, Fortunato E.
Diezmo, Nomer B. Villanueva, Edwina A. Jurok, Fatima V. Rojas,
Eduardo E. Ebreo, Ronalyn T. Almarvez, Ma. Victoria C. Ocampo,
Elizabeth Lipura, Mary Ann J. Cayanan, Manolo Manuel E. Garcia,
Petronilo C. Primacio Jr., Edward Eric Santos, Armina B. Almonte,
Elizabeth G. Villanueva, Erwin Russ B. Ragasa, Bien T. Camba,
Marlon M. Suligan, Chanda B. Tolentino, Ferdinand R. Molina, Lanie
F. Aguinaldo, Jasmine L. Lindain, Emilio P. Domine, Arnold P. Obial,
Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Jerome H. Aviles, Ana Lea M. Estacio, Cristina
E. Lampitoc, Melanie DC Begasa, Evangeline M. Ching, Karla Mae
Pacunayen, Ronaldo S. Quijano, Domingo H. Hocosol, Edwin P.
Ubana, Marvin O. Balicuatro, Ma. Luz D. Dionisio, Maribel A. Molina,
Sevilla B. Del Castillo, Aida Josefina Ignacio, Benigno A. Marzan,
Ignacio Gonzales, Lawrence D. Perez, and Edmundo Vergara
c/o Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Hall of
Justice, Pasay City

Judge Emily San Gaspar – Gito


c/o RTC Branch 5, Manila

5
December 27, 2017

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno


Supreme Court

Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez


Office of the Court Administrator

RE: Dismissal of A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821

Your Honors:

I was informed that there are numerous Facebook accounts with name Eliza B. Yu.
Please see attached Exhibit “1”.

There are two Facebook accounts with similar names Eliza B. Yu, one activated and the
other deactivated that appeared at my kin’s friend’s list. Please see attached Exhibit “2”
previously submitted to OCA and SC.

What appeared from a kin’s messenger to a deactivated Facebook account with name
Eliza B. Yu is “Facebook user” not “Eliza B. Yu”, the effect of deactivation previously
mentioned in my correspondences to your respective office. Please see attached Exhibit
“3”.

Facebook accounts with similar names and identities are deactivated or suspended
automatically. Please see attached Exhibits “4” and “5”.

Because typewritten Facebook emails with name Bambi Yu were attached to Judge
Emily L. San Gaspar – Gito’s complaint against me, the absence of my requested actual
computer-print-outs with Facebook name Bambi Yu from start of probe until now
denied me of my constitutional right to due process that calls for the dismissal of the
administrative case without prejudice to its re-filing upon presentation of competent
and credible evidence to be attached with the new complaint thereafter she follows the
legal, right and just observance of administrative processes. Due process entails the
adoption of proper procedure.

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional


rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party's right
to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or
disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is
apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.
This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings, for the
constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or
administrative) where he stands to lose the same (Montoya v. Varilla, G.R. No. 180146,
1
December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 831, 843). Although administrative procedural rules are
less stringent and often applied more liberally, administrative proceedings are not
exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due
process in investigations and hearings (Civil Service Commission v. Lucas, 361 Phil 486,
491 [1999]).

Thank you.

Judge Eliza B. Yu

Copy furnished:
Judge Emily L. San Gaspar – Gito
c/o RTC Branch 5, Manila

2
October 11, 2017

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno


Supreme Court

Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez


Office of the Court Administrator

RE: Prohibition to Maintain Two Profiles by a Facebook User and Other Related Matters on
A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821

Your Honors:

I found out that “Facebook is a community where people use their authentic identities. It's
against the Facebook Community Standards to maintain more than one personal account.” My
references are:

1. http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2012/07/a-facebook-dilemma-one-
account-or-two/
2. https://www.facebook.com/help/203498356357867?helpref=faq_content
3. https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/9134/top-5-things-not-to-do-on-
facebook.aspx

I noticed that there are several names Eliza Yu and Bambi Yu that appeared at the search engine
of Facebook, some of them are deactivated as of today. Please see attached copies marked as
Annex “1” and Annex “2” respectively.

If a Facebook user’s account has been deactivated, suspended, or deleted, the user's name
registered is replaced by "Facebook User", this is what appears in the inbox messages of the
recipient.

My cousins found out that there are two Facebook Accounts named Eliza B. Yu - one is
active and the other is inactive. Please see attached copy marked as Annex “3” as proof.

If none of these two Facebook Accounts named Eliza B. Yu appeared in the Facebook of Judge
Emily San Gaspar - Gito’s friends, with more reason that she must produce and give to me the
actual computer-print-outs with the name Bambi Yu so I can identify and testify each email, then
enter my objection if any.

1
Also, they found out that my Facebook named Eliza B. Yu which is active was hacked and/ or
tampered because it was stated that I was in two different cities – Manila and Pasay at the same
time on December 31, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. Please see attached copy marked as Annex “4” as
proof.

I am submitting two proofs marked as Annex “5” and Annex “6”, among several others, to
prove my email account luvs2smile2@msn.com was hacked and/or tampered, it sent emails to
others without my consent or prior knowledge as I claimed several times in my letters and
pleadings to the Office of the Court Administrator. The dates of hacking and/ or tampering as
proven by emails on deleted and sent sections are immaterial because once an email account was
hacked, it will be hacked repeatedly, that is, with or without my knowledge later on.

Because of the foregoing, it must be an absolute necessity that I testify and identify then enter
my objection if any to the actual computer print-outs of Facebook messages with the Facebook
user name Bambi Yu that I allegedly sent to complainant Judge Emily San Gaspar – Gito
because what were attached to the complaint against me were all typewritten emails with
Facebook name Bambi Yu otherwise the falsified, perjurious and libelous charge against me
must be dismissed for being a pure hearsay.

I requested several times, orally and in writing, from the Supreme Court and the Office of the
Court Administrator prior to the promulgation of the questioned Decision of all the subject
emails but I was not given any, and I was wrongfully and unjustly penalized with an offense of
Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge that was unproven by her, then her remaining administrative
charge must be dismissed for failure to provide actual computer-print outs of the subject emails,
she committed multiple counts of perjury, Falsification and Libel, I can prove these criminal
charges and I can pass her cross-examination before a trial court.

Thank you.

Judge Eliza B. Yu